Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

That Hoffman video was good. Actually similar to a lot of my thoughts on the subject.
He echoed the same ideas that Charles Tart proposed concerning evolution shaping our states of consciousness into ones conducive to survival.
Hoffman takes it to the next level in some respects, but the same core ideas.

 

reminds of the thread I started a while back about whether or not consciousness was an emergent property of the universe or exists/ed prior to what we accept as such.

It does seem as if the course of evolution has been to develop better and better mechanisms and systems for experiencing and expressing this thing we call "consciousness".
but of course that is also adopting the very anthropocentric assumption that we humans and our nervous systems are somehow at the present peak of the evolutionary ladder and that we are somehow the "goal" as it were.

 

I have too experienced Kundalini and as China cat says is correct in a way. My experience is not of a raise in Body temp but more of a warmth spreading up your spine, the back of your head and if you are lucky through and around the top of you head, not an all over temp rise. That I think seems to be the confusion.
Kundalini is very distinctive and i find for a long while after wards, that it just keeps flowing even if I am up and walking around, it is still present. Only after doing some stretching does it seem to diminish I don't think it is heat per-say but rather a cooling energy .


"Energy is not just in terms of physical energy or activity, energy is in terms of life. Existence is energy, isn’t it? The basis of existence is energy."
http://www.ishafoundation.org/blog/yoga-meditation/demystifying-yoga/kundalini-awakening/

 

Unfortunately, personal experience is not proof.

 

LOL

you "liked" MeAgain posts which infers you agree with it.
you know by doing such you contradict yourself...LOL

 

No. Maybe you need to reread or gain a better understanding.

 

Good... That means to me, you don't exist... I have no proof you exist, so you don't.


I can deal with that.

 

Good. You can ignore this now.

 

Ubiquity of afterlife narratives. Also, they aren't all similar. Do a search for NDEs that don't match the norm, they're out there. If NDEs are really windows into the afterlife, then I'm not sure how to explain those who have non-abrahamic NDEs.

Someone can call themselves an atheist and believe in God. Someone can call themselves an atheist, and not believe in God, and believe in an afterlife. Someone can call themselves atheist and not believe in God and not believe in an afterlife, and yet when you subject their neurology to sufficient strain and trauma, they will experience a traditional religious experience.

Don't forget that chinacat also wants science to study his kundalini, so he gets to have it both ways in this debate; mock us for not believing that kundalini is a verifiable physical phenomenon that will topple the foundation of all human knowledge, and then scoff when we ask for better proof than "I feel really hot sometimes but I'm not", saying that we could never understand a deeply personal experience.

 

While I agree China is a little out there, he is not the only person to have reported similar subjective experiences and if enough people report the same subjective experience, then we do owe it a closer, fuller examination.
After all, we do exist and communicate via a consensual reality after all, so if a statistically significant number of person's report the same subjective experience, doesn't that in itself constitute scientific data?

So are you taking a piss at the idea of Kundalini or at Chinacat?

 

No, we do not.

Stop being so illogical.

After all, if the majority agrees that Pepsi is the best and that you must like the taste of it, must it be true?

 

LOL

you funny

 

I'm glad I made you laugh.

But that is how logic works.

 

but science also takes into consideration statistical data, which is what I'm talking about.

 

Statistics are not the entire world's view.

You know that right?

When statistics are involved, only a portion are polled.

 

"God" is universally excepted, granted only on this green earth, but there is no undeniable proof he/she/they do exist and cannot be tested again and again in a lab

5 billion people on this earth believe in some form of "God" or another, that cannot be tested. Is that undeniable enough for you?

There is no undeniable proof that I evolved from Apes but most believe it as fact, I just see a correlation between us and Animals. Some of the same genes but none exact. They are forever "looking" for the "missing" link that binds our genes with Apes, but never have succeeded. We are all made of the same substances so there is bound to be connections somewhere in our genetic makeup but that does not make undeniable proof.

Theory is just that, theory. Without it Science would have never been. You need a theory to start the science experiment. Look how long it took Einstein to proof his theory of relativity or of gravity since the discovery by Newton. Kundalini is not new, it just does not draw the same funding check that Evolution does

 

If you are going to go the numbers route, may I point you toward the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Numbers don't matter.

If you believe that we evolved from apes, then you are sorely mistaken and never took a science class in your life.

Ask me why I should even continue with you? If you are going to be stupid, there is no reason for me to waste my time on you.

 

The theory of evolution suggests that we evolved from apes, does it not?

And why are you saying that numbers don't matter and yet saying that the universally accepted notions of reality is what defines reality? i can quote you on it if you need.

 

Personally, I feel that Kundalini would be much more of that missing link than Scientists fully realize right now, and may perhaps even be our link to realizing our Ancient Astronaut origins.